@Account Closed
You posted:
" I would suggest all comments related to what may be a regulatory or possible criminal issue be directed to me, feel free to address comments to me on the post or send me a private message and I will do my best to answer it."
Nick, I've been on BP for over 6 years, people that have been here awhile know me. Jeff was asking about my suggestion of using an option contract after seeing an option shown in your information, obviously he had to ask for my clarification as to my advice. Jeff is trying to learn, which is where most on BP are at.
I was not speaking to the legality of your posted informational report. That is a gracious offer to address specifics in that report, one that others should take you up on. You're the only one here who knows what is actually contained in the report, assuming other regulators privy to the full report aren't here.
Your'e correct when you said:
"I believe Bill was speaking from an investors perspective and wasn't trying to speak from my experiences."
I can only speak from my knowledge and experiences, certainly not form others, that now covers over 50 years of work, business experience that includes federal financial regulatory experience. Real estate falls under the umbrella of finance and past duties included identifying criminal activity. With that said, I'll give my opinion to anyone who may ask for it as well. If the nature of any question falls specifically to the report mentioned, I will refer them to you Nick.
However, in general, looking at the guru documents contained in that report I see issues.
The Affidavit to be filed is incorrect and fails to give a termination date as to when the "option" expires.
It states that an equitable interest in the described property has been conveyed by the contract, it has not, options do not convey an equitable interest in title they convey an interest in the contract. So, my BS Meter goes off. Not including an expiration date presents title issues, it could delay or prevent future conveyances and become a civil matter for damages.
IMO, from what I see on the guru option, it implies performance of the optionee (in this case the wholesaler) In essence, if the optionee fails to perform the contract is ineffective, void. That isn't even an option! An option may not require any performance of any kind and if it does it reverts to a different type of contract.
What I can also see is that the "option" may be terminated by the seller at any time......that is laughable, certainly not an option!
Using terms such as buyer and seller in an option will take down the road of an installment agreement determination quickly, options don't have buyers and sellers, the grantor is the optionor and the grantee is the optionee.
What that is is more of a listing agreement dressed up like an option, it's pure horesfeathers.
So, I can see any state regulator considering that "option" as a disguised listing and brokering if that optionee is not a licensee and even if they had a license, there would likely be other issues, such as a net listing and brokering requirements. Not something folks need to try and do!
Typical guru stuff! I feel another blog coming.
Only Nick can address why those documents ended up in his report, if you would Nick you might address that.
Unrelated to the report (educational information) but related to such activities;
The FTC has new expanded powers and they are using them, they nailed a guru teaching how to avoid foreclosure, short sale issues, heavily fined, put out of business and other charges pending.
So, my question to Nick, having been in this arena recently, why aren't these gurus nailed for their advertising ploys of misinformation like the other instructor advocating illegal conduct? At one time, I had powers of arrest, I'd love to slap cuffs on some of these gurus! :)